Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Current issues

Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif

It has been pointed out repeatedly to User:Giano II at [1] that the image is not in the public domain. User:Giano II remains defiant and refuses to consider any alternative licence. 41.208.217.170 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems just plain silly. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance that the photograph was first published after 1937, but it's a minute one. It was taken in 1879 for god's sake. Aside from anything else, given the sitters there's a reasonable chance this is a crown copyright in which case it's undoubtedly now in the public domain. Can you really not find more problematic images to worry about? — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's actually no chance that the photograph was published after 1937, as it was published in 1879 by being handed out to the participants in the house party that is the subject of the photograph. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to "anons" statement above I don't care what copyright tag it has (I see it has just been changed [2] so long as Anon is not trying to have it deleted), as that is plainly daft. I just though {PD-old}} was the most logical. Giano 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon never mentioned the word "deletion", but simply requested that the tag be changed. If the change had been made then, all this fuss could have been avoided. 41.208.243.92 07:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true [3] you mention deletion twice in this one short post. You also kept reverting my changing of the tag. Never mind all is well that ends well. Giano 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FGS [4] If Carnildo is happy what on earth is all this about? Giano 06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Truly, if Carnildo is satisfied that's the last word on the matter. No administrative action is required here; the IfD will run its course. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The administrative action is required here. The IP needs to be investigated for sockpuppetry and the account(s) has to be blocked for pesky harassment. --Irpen 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Buttons for blocking/unblocking users

Resolved

 – The buttons say "Block" and "Unblock" now. --ais523 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gurch has pointed out that the button for blocking a user/IP/range says "Block this user", but the button for unblocking a user/IP/range says "Unblock this address". It's not clear whether this inconsistency is harmful, or what consistent text should be chosen if it is; more input at MediaWiki talk:Ipusubmit would be helpful. --ais523 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User warning template inconsistancy

I've noticed that even after the user warnings have been cleaned up, templates such as Template:Test4 have not been made consistant with their new counterparts (Template:uw-test4. Most of the older templates are only editable by admins, so I mentioned this here.--Avant Guard 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason the older templates have not been made similar is that, when the newer ones were made, the admins who used the old ones didn't want to see them changed. Perhaps it has been long enough now to just redirect {{test4}} to {{uw-test4}} and so on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a better place for this discussion, but as somebody who uses the test templates, and not the new ones, I would not like to see them simply redirected to their new counterparts. For numerous reasons, including my dislike for the new wording and use of icons, I (and I assume others) prefer not to use the new templates. - auburnpilot talk 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest boldly changing them (it's only a redirect, should not be a big deal), and if there turn out to be objections, discussing the matter on WP:TFD. >Radiant< 08:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events

Portal:Current events has been under continious attack today. The project page is semi-protected, but the templates (such as Portal:Current events/2007 October 1) are not. Therefore, a better system for supervising and protecting these templates is urgently needed. --Camptown 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cascade protected it for 12 hours, after which an admin should restore the original protections. Maxim_(talk) 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Several of those templates can probably be protected as high-risk. Except for the one you mention (Portal:Current events/2007 October 1) which really isn't. >Radiant< 08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed

There seems to be a fascination to adding false future destinations to the G8 article. I think this is due to some website or another linking to an incorrect past revision as a joke... but subsequent vandalized versions are staying unreverted for way too long and I have no idea how much longer this will continue. Some extra eyes would be helpful. --W.marsh 01:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to watch the article. NCurse _work 05:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• It got Farked, heh, that's where it's all coming from. ♠PMC♠ 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:ClaimJumperPete

FYI

An FYI. There's an odd persistent vandal, ClaimJumperPete and sockpuppets whose habit is to insert seemingly misguided "ant-vandalism" comments in random articles, using a highly stylized southern U.S. accent. He plays the "just trying to help" and "I don't understand why you don't like me" games, but has also started scoreboarding his vandalism (see Example 1, Example 2). I've asked for full protect on the user and user talk pages this vandal can edit, to stop the scoreboarding. I mention the guy here:

• to alert a wider range of admins, since he plays the naive user game very well
• to inquire if there's more that can be done

I'm not an admin and don't know all the tools you guys have for squashing vandalism. Studerby 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to mention this at WP:LTA.--Avant Guard 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice, Studerby. It appears that all the known and declared socks were all blocked independently by different administrators, so it is nice to tie it all in one package so we can keep an eye out. Appreciate it. Keegan^talk 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser filed. Lets see if we can catch some sleepers, or an IP address. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of posting Studerby's comment on WP:LTA along with a modus operandi section that I've written.--Avant Guard 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the transfer over to LTA, I overlooked that board. Sounds like the admins are on the case... Studerby 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Threat

The vandal just used a new sockpuppet, User:GhostofPete, made the general threat in this edit:

It won't take ya long ta be figurin' this is yer ClaimJumperPete. n' I dun really care how fast yar gunna be choosin' ta report this account neither, but I gotta cupple uh werds for ya pal. I been noticin' yer takin' quite n' involvement revertin' my rosters, ya know i had to be takin' notice uh that. 'nother thing, it's kinda clear that ya got an interest 'n silencin' me. Perhaps ya might want to know what yer gonna be up against. Ya might be thinkin' dis is sum sorta game: yer bullet hit the mark. Jus' the other day me 'n a friend kicked it off the same time, he dern got 37 hits n' I got 31 before we were both cleared out. Soon enough yer gonna see a site such as CJP.suddenlaunch3.com or a better variant. A forum where I'll be roundin' up a posse of dudes I dun even be knowin' yet. Ya think 'am havin' a wild time doin' this? ya don't know the half of it. But y'all got a choice. ya can either get ma' account unblocked, and move yer merry way, er I can keep doin' this till the cows come home. Ya herd that clear: If ya unblock me, ClaimJumperPete, I'll never be makin' another edit again, 'n it'll be over. But if y'all shut me down again, it'll be back ta yer status quo right here. Otherwise 'am perfectly fine wit dis lil' charade, in all actuality. The ball's in yer court, pal. GhostOfPete 02:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

...and we can do this 'til the cows come home, too. Don't feed the troll, vandals are dealt with as they pop up. Keegan^talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Newest sock added to checkuser. Hopefully, he'll keep making accounts so we can CheckUser him and report his ISP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy for transferring photographs to Commons

A humble suggestion follows. Motorrad-67 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Before doing anything to initiate a transfer, the photographer must be contacted to discuss the potential transfer. No transfer will ever be made without prior communication with the photographer.

• The person wishing to execute a transfer (transferer) must ascertain the photographer's opinion about making the transfer. If the photographer does not understand the meaning of the transfer or the nature of the Commons, the transferer must explain this to him or her.

• If the photographer agrees to the transfer, the transfer may be made.

• If the photographer does not agree to the transfer, discussion must continue to ascertain the reason(s) for the disagreement in an attempt to implement reasonable and mutually acceptable procedures to secure agreement.

• If no agreement can be made, the photographer will be provided the option to have his or her photograph(s) deleted completely from Wikipedia. If the photographer does not agree to deletion and does not agree to the transfer after reasonable efforts are made to secure his or her agreement, the transferer may transfer the photographs 14 days after the initial contact with the photographer was made.

The best place to discuss policy isn't on the AN, it's on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Will ^(talk) 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have posted it there. Motorrad-67 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WoW

I'd like to report 82.45.40.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels. He has similiarity to his other socks. The use of "WWWWWWWWWW" [5] [6], the term "fucking bastard" [7] [8], and more if you check his contribs. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are signs of an uncivil vandal, but far from proof that it's actually the same person as the earlier famous vandal (who, I think, had more class and couth... he just moved articles to titles with "...on Wheels", without cursing anybody out as far as I know). *Dan T.* 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you even click the diff links? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty blatant WoW sock. east.718 at 22:32, October 2, 2007

Or a "me-too" vandal trying to ride the coattails of WoW's fame or infamy, anyway. Didn't the real WoW supposedly "reform" and apologize? *Dan T.* 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Accoriding to a rejected arbitration case, someone claiming to be WoW said that the one who apologized was not really him. hbdragon88 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Dan T; this WoW sock business needs to stop. That's not Willy's ISP, at least not the one I remember, and any random jackass with an internet connection can fill the edit summary with the letter 'W'. Moreover, this is a non-static IP that hasn't made an edit since June and which has no sockpuppets active on it. What would you have us do? Mackensen (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly we shouldn't care whether or not this is the "official" WoW. It's irrelevant. If it's a vandal-only account, revert, block, ignore. Even the Ancient Greeks had that one down pat. >Radiant< 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• It's worth noting, that this IP hasn't made an edit in nearly 4 months. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skateremorocker continues to delete sources and citation requests, among other things

Here are some of his edits of the past 10 days:

Examples of sources being deleted:

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Examples of citation requests being deleted:

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

Examples of changing sourced information:

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]

Hoponpop69 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why was this not even acknowledged by anyone?Hoponpop69Hoponpop69 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What I see is a classic content dispute over the band The Classic Crime being a Christian band or not. This does not require admin attention. Please talk it out on the talk page. Though I will say that Skateremorocker's remark "or I will ban you" was inapropriate. — Edokter • Talk • 23:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We've tried that but it didn't really work, so I'm using Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Thank you for responding. Hoponpop69 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Need a sock-knowledgeable admin

Could someone look at this, it's a sock puppett case that I got into when it was on ANI and it is snowballing. This user keeps dropping notes on my talk page, I want to help but I'm not very knowledgeable in sock cases and I'm now in over my head. Can another admin please help? Thanks. Rlevse 01:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• User:SarahLover has been indefinitely blocked as a suspected sock, obviously picking up where another account left off[20]. Keegan^talk 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific? What sort of further help do you need? I see Betacommand's analysis suggesting all of these are related. I'd hate to actually run CUs on all these userids. I suggest WP:DUCK. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey Lar, I think the issue was over the fact that SarahLover was not blocked, although a non-admin placed the indef-blocked sock tag on the userpage. A CU could reveal the underlying IP, but I'm hardblocking to take care of that anyway. So, case closed I think. Keegan^talk 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Other users were hard blocked, so why can the person keep editing? Dynamic IPs, different computers? Also, the reporting user seems frustrated that the sock can keep creating accounts--can anything be done to stop this? Rlevse 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, second door on the left. Seriously, it is the only avenue to take care of account abuse. We as admins don't have the capacity to track socks to the extent required here. Keegan^talk 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
          • And it's already there. Sharp eyes and an even temperament, that's all you can have. Keegan^talk 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Hard-blocking users is only effective for 24 hours via WP:AUTOBLOCK. It's not like hard-blocking IPs. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rats, this guy's really bad. Sounds like we really need CU to stop this guy.Rlevse 02:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Learn something new everyday. Keegan^talk 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Luffy1794

This user keeps removing deletion templates w/o following policy despite two warnings i left on their talk page. The Placebo Effect 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message for the user, plus a standardized welcome message (and a 3RR warning at that). The user hasn't reverted the most recent templates, and it's been about an hour, so perhaps your message did the trick. We can always still monitor the situation. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD socks

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London tunnel run contains many socks. Send help. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Using userpages to criticize other users' statements

User:GHcool has a list of "Accusations vs. Reality" on his/her userpage which is more of a collection of quotes without context and rebuttals thereof. Most of the quotes are chosen to make the respective editor look anti-Semitic or just plain stupid. Is this really what userpages are for? Pedro Gonnet 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This would not be the first time somebody challenged by user page. The first time it happened, User:SlimVirgin and User:Jpgordon exhonerated me of the accusations of misconduct citing that I quote my subjects fairly and accurately and even provide a link to where the quotation came from so that others can check the context themselves and judge accordingly. They also said that it does not violate WP:NPA because I keep my criticisms to what was being said as opposed to criticising the person who said it. --GHcool 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm another victim of this behaviour - which drives a cart and horses through accept good faith. But I've never bother challenging it, I assumed GHcool had some special permission to behave in these unpleasant ways, and that if I attempted to behave in any similar fashion I'd be immediately blocked for disruptive use of UserPage, personal attacks and probably several other things. It's especially bizzare that he should be the one doing this, because I'm pretty sure I could present a lot of what he writes as being extreme, displaying disruptive logic, writing tendentiously, edit-warring against consensus, along with flouting BLP and probably breaches of a whole pile of other policies. Several of these patterns of behaviour are clearly visible at this talk page, where he seems determined he'll hold up editing to consensus. GHcool's behaviour and outrageous attacks on an excellent scholar (and the small amount of uncontentious material from him we'd like to use in the article) seems calculated to protect another source used extensively - a race-hater with a strong association to violence amounting to terrorism. PR^talk 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how assuming good faith and criticizing somebody's statements are necessarily contradictory. People do it all the time all over Wikipedia. --GHcool 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the headline to remove the word "slander", which can be taken as a legal accusation against other users. You don't need to go there to have this matter heard. I don't know the answer to the underlying report but it seems uncomfortably close to personal attacks to use your talk page to call out users for criticism who have not voluntarily chosen to enter a discussion there. Wikidemo 08:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki admin going out of bounds

Hi,

I need your help. There is an admin called Leuko who is vandalising an article on American University of Antigua. I feel that Leuko is extremely biased against a medical school called University of Health Sciences Antigua, and has added an unnecessary line worded as, "For the unaccredited medical school with a similar name disapproved by many U.S. states, see University of Health Sciences Antigua" at the beginning of the American University of Antigua article. I have made an edit and he threatened to ban me. He tries to edit most medical school articles, and in the end, all that is left is "[a certain medical school] according to Leuko". Would it be possible for you to help me?

Thanks

DrGladwin 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First, Leuko is not an admin. Second, Leuko's preferred wording for the disambiguation message at the top of American University of Antigua College of Medicine violates NPOV. My own feeling is that the names "American University of Antigua College of Medicine" and "University of Health Sciences Antigua" are not similar enough to warrant disambig notices at all. I have removed the message accordingly. Third, your removal of it is not vandalism and Leuko was wrong to imply it was such. Forth, this noticeboard was probably not the best place for you to bring up this concern, as it does not involve use of administrative powers. Mike R 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I always thought Leuko was an admin from the way he "bosses" over other other mods. He even threatened to ban a fellow mod! Can you believe that?! Leuko hacks through articles and no one, I say no one, is allowed to undo the changes he has made. Notice his edits and the sentiments he as stirred up on his talk page from his previous edits. People who go against him are threatened by bans. Anyways, thanks for your help. DrGladwin 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:DrGladwin so as to desist from clogging up AN. Mike R 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep posting here, but it is clear that Leuko is implying he is a mod/admin. He posted on my talk page a message regarding a different medical school and indicated if I continued making certain edits I would be blocked from editing. He very clearly implied that he has this power. I have removed this from my talk page as it is plain silly and very bullying of him. While he makes no explicit statement of being an admin he clearly implies it. BTW, the article in question is Caribbean Medical University. I beg for your assistance. Bstone 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he used a standard 3rr warning template. There is nothing wrong with any editor warning other editors to not edit war. No idea if it was warranted in this case, but there's nothing automatically wrong with a non-admin using that template. Friday (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Leuko been notified that this thread exists? There are mechanisms for resolving disputes with particular editors. In general, unaccredited schools are a touchy subject. Leuko has worked on a number of these articles. We've had issues in the past with these articles and how to present accreditation info. I would strongly suggest following the dispute resolution methods, such as asking for a third opinion or filing a user-conduct request for comment, rather than soliciting people with a dislike for Leuko to comment here. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, it's not a question of disliking Leuko. It's the question of him threatening to ban other editors and mods if they make changes in articles that he disapproves. I had removed one line from the AUA article (this same line has been removed by an admin), and notice the warning Leuko wrote on my talk page: he simply threatened to ban me. I feel this is not right and is against our principle of "Being Bold." DrGladwin 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that in posts on DrGladwin's talk page, Leuko specifically and unambiguously stated on DrGladwin's talk page would be blocked from editing if he continued with certain edits. He wrote, "you will be blocked from editing" (emphasis not added). Leuko's incivility, bullying and implying he has the ability to block someone is what is making is incredibly uncomfortable. Thank you for the dispute resolution links. I shall be following up with them. Bstone 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The block warning is a part of our standard warning templates. They in no way indicate that the person leaving the warning will be doing the blocking and, in fact, are for the use of all editors. See WP:WARN. -Chunky Rice 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

it's a standard template message - if you don't like the wording then obtain consensus to change it, the fact that certain words within are highlighted does not provide you with a stick to hit Leuko over the head. Do some basic research in future before attacking other editors with such claims. --Fredrick day 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless one reads and is familiar with WP:WARN they would immediately to the conclusion that the person issuing the warning has the ability to make good on it. The policy for issuing warning should change as it is very ambiguous as to the standing of the person issuing it. Notice that by issuing this message two casual editors (DrGladwin and myself) were both convinced Leuko as an admin. Be that as it may, I will be drafting a request for mediation based on Leuko's incivility and bullying. I don't see the need to post here again. Bstone 18:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what you and DrGladwin believe, it doesn't matter whether an admin or another editor or a kitten issues a warning. Your response to one should be the same regardless: you'd ignore it if it's meritless or adjust your actions accordingly. However, I'd warn against going for the former method, as some tend to see every warning they receive as meritless, even when some are not. -- tariqabjotu 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion on external link adding...

User:Malcjennings has decided to add literally hundreds of external links to a specific site ([21]). I'm not entirely sure whether it's external link spamming or not. Second opinion before I set VandalProof on his contributions list? Any help much appreciated. If people agree, it'll probably need more than just me reverting: about 200 added, and the account was only created today(!). Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked a few of the entries; the linked to website is merely regurgitating other people's advertising copy and reprinting the game instructions, which are copyrighted. I'm sure it's a very helpful site for people who have downloaded warez, but I can't think of a particularly good reason wikipedia should link to it. Studerby 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(third opinion) Oh, definitely external link spamming. Someone else already gave them a final warning, and they seem to have stopped half an hour ago. Revert all. I'd help, but I'm not automated. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the final warning before spotting this thread, even though they were only on level 1 previously, as I looked at their contributions beforehand. I didn't revert any of the changes myself, as I too am unaided, but I called on User:Moonriddengirl to rollback the changes. However, this leaves a lot of links to cpczone.net, and many of the user's edits were simply modifying the existing links (possibly spam). Would it be too much to remove all ELs to cpczone, while leaving any legitimate uses of the site as a reference? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image protection on the main page

I notice admins protecting Wikipedia images before they are added to the main page. I don't believe that's necessary anymore because of the cascading protection. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm less sure about images on commons. If an image from commons is on the main page but is protected on commons, does it still need to be uploaded here to prevent vandalism? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, all images should be protected prior to being put on the main page, as it is possible for a vandal to vandalize an image right before it gets placed on the cascade-protected main page (especially DYK and ITN, as they aren't on the cascade-protected Main Page/Tomorrow prior to being on the main page). However, if an image is already on the main page (or Main Page/Tomorrow) without normal protection and it is protected on commons, then it isn't necessary to c-upload it. Basically, if you don't know exactly how cascade protection works, you should upload and full protect before placing any image on the main page. --- RockMFR 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RockMFR is correct - non admins can't upload images to the same title as an image on Commons. So if the image is protected on Commons, it need not be here. Those who are admins on Commons can protect it there rather than having to upload a local version. Otherwise, if the image exists unvandalised on a cascaded page, there's no need to protect it as well but if its possible for it to be vandalised just before automatic inclusion on such a page it should be. There's probably no harm in people playing safe and double protecting though. WjBscribe 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

One small caveat would be that the regular protection should have a time limit. Otherwise, the admin removing it from the main page will have to check that it doesn't become permanently protected. It seems simpler to let cascading protection do its job. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh absolutely - whether protection is here or on Commons, I can't see why it would need to be for more than 1 day... WjBscribe 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of items on ITN of course, which have lingered on the Main Page for over a week in rare cases. - BanyanTree 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad/images

Resolved

I'm not really sure what's with this page. Obviously, wikipedia is not for image galleries. The page isn't linked from any page in the mainspace either. So, what's the consensus on what to do with this page? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, which redirects to an archive, the page appears to have been used as a testing ground for the image dispute related to Muhammad. Not really sure what the standard practice would be, but I'd suggest deleting Muhammad/images and moving the talk page (Talk:Muhammad/images/archive) to an archive of main talk page. - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Muhammad/images - moved to Talk:Muhammad/images/archive 2 and is a candidate for speedy deletion as a cross-namespace redirect
• Talk:Muhammad/images - re-redirected to Talk:Muhammad
• Placed Talk:Muhammad/images/archive 2 on Talk:Muhammad as archive link.
• Fixed double redirects.

Finished. — Moe ε 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Burgz33

I just semi-protected his user page based on this which he repeated. I really like the last two sentences. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a static ip? WP:LEGAL might be invoked if so. LessHeard vanU 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not likely. He'll be back with a new one again, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Burgz33. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just incase anyone's wondering, s/he is wrong and can't revoke their edits. See WP:REVOKE for more specific info. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV: List of Mario universe games

Resolved

User:VitasV has created the above. I am under the impression that personal pages are not allowed. he has also put a warning message on the talk page. I wish not to put a signature, as I fear attacks if I report this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks sign bot!!!! StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user in question hasn't broken any rules. Unreasonable demands to not edit, sure, but the pages are in fact allowed as it has an obvious purpose for the 'pedia. See Wikipedia:Subpages and Wikipedia:User page. --Ben^chat 12:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, but there is no indication that it is a sub page, and therefore he can't claim it to be personal. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page to his userspace where it belongs. The page looks like it might be part of his encyclopedic work, so we can assume good faith and leave it alone. Kusma (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as it's in userspace (even though it tosses naming conventions out the window), and I would call it a subpage although it technically isn't one. He's not claiming it to be personal anyway, just telling people not to edit (people are entitled to ignorant opinions). Heck, look at my sandbox, I use it to formulate template designs and article edits all the time. <edit conflict hit me here> thanks Kusma. --Ben^chat 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a sub page now, so that deals with it. Thanks. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Outside Opinions

Earlier today, I placed WP:RFA on WP:MFD, which was speedy closed by Deskana as being an invalid forum for debating the RFA process. Ryan Postlethwaite moved it to WP:RFC over here. I would appreciate comments from admins and non-admins alike (on all sides of the debate), as I feel there are some serious flaws that need addressing. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)